Toward a Self‑Directed Learning Future: A 2025 Landscape Analysis

Oct 4

By Dr. Tyler Thigpen and Dr. Caleb Collier

Executive Summary

Toward a Self-Directed Learning Future: A 2025 Landscape Analysis

The Problem
American schools were designed for compliance, not agency. By emphasizing rigid schedules, one-right-answer tests, and adult control, the system has produced generations of dependent learners. The consequences are visible: declining creativity, weak civic literacy, high youth anxiety, and workforce unpreparedness. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this fragility—students accustomed to direction floundered, while those with self-direction thrived.

The Opportunity
The landscape has shifted dramatically since 2021. Families are demanding learner-centered models; 74% of Americans express interest in self-directed education. States are expanding Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), funding learners rather than systems. Microschools and networks like Acton, Prenda, and Wildflower are proliferating, serving over a million students. International bodies (OECD, UNESCO) highlight student agency as a future-ready competency. In short, momentum, policy, and public appetite align.

The Evidence
New research confirms that self-direction is learnable, not innate. The Institute for Self-Directed Learning identifies a four-phase developmental pathway:

Desire to Learn
Resourcefulness
Initiative
Persistence

Studies show that environments designed for agency—open studios, student-curated spaces, mastery-based assessments—improve motivation, behavior, and outcomes. Surveys demonstrate that most learners, given the chance, want to direct their own learning. SDL is especially powerful for neurodiverse and underserved students, offering equity and resilience.

Emerging Models
Examples nationwide—Red Bridge (CA), SOAR Academy (GA), Ellemercito (CA), the Indiana Microschools Collaborative—prove SDL works in diverse contexts: urban and rural, neurotypical and neurodivergent, public and private. Acton Academies now span 20+ countries. These schools share common DNA: autonomy levels instead of age-grades, badges instead of seat-time, projects and exhibitions instead of worksheets, and guides instead of teachers.

Recommendations for Systemic Change

Seed pilots in every state to showcase public SDL models.
Modernize credentials with mastery-based diplomas and flexible transcripts.
Retrain educators as coaches through micro-credentials and fellowships.
Fund research and storytelling to build evidence and public will.
Prioritize equity, ensuring access for underserved learners.
Set enabling policy conditions—innovation zones, funding that follows students, and performance-based accountability.

Conclusion
We stand at a crossroads. Incremental tweaks cannot fix a system designed for dependence. Bold, coordinated action can. With the right policies, pilots, and professional development, America can move from compliance to self-direction—unlocking a generation of independent thinkers, problem-solvers, and citizens. The cost of inaction is high, but the opportunity is historic: a learner-driven future that secures both individual flourishing and societal strength.

Introduction: The High Stakes of Dependent Learning

This report examines the urgent need to redesign our education system around self-directed learning.

The analysis builds on the Institute for Self-Directed Learning’s 2021 landscape and incorporates new research and developments through 2025. We confront a timely, high-stakes public problem: traditional K–12 schooling, by design, often produces dependent learners—students who rely on constant adult direction and external motivators. This is not a hypothetical concern. In fact, one thought experiment asks us to imagine a school explicitly designed to churn out dependent learners: rigid schedules minimizing autonomy, passive lectures stifling curiosity, assessments rewarding one-right-answer thinking, and adults making all decisions while students seldom exercise real agency. The notion sounds absurd—until one realizes it describes the dominant model of American schooling today [linkedin.com].

The long-term societal consequences of this design failure are profound. After decades of emphasizing compliance over curiosity, we are witnessing a generation of students who struggle to generate original ideas and think critically (creativity scores have declined since the 1990s), lack civic literacy (only 22% of U.S. 8th graders score proficient in civics), and suffer record levels of anxiety and hopelessness (44% of high schoolers felt persistent sadness in 2021). Employers report that many graduates enter the workforce unable to problem-solve or self-start; in one 2024 survey, nearly 90% of employers prioritized problem-solving, yet barely half found recent grads adequately prepared in critical thinking. Equally troubling, adults educated in top-down environments show vulnerabilities in decision-making and media literacy—one Stanford study found over 80% of teens (and many adults) can’t distinguish news from ads, a deficit linked to limited training in critical thinking during their K–12 years. Psychologists have also drawn connections between reduced childhood independence and higher anxiety and depression in young adults. Many adults have spent years unlearning the conditioning of gold stars and external validation. The legacy of a system that prized compliance over self-direction runs deep, affecting how we lead, decide, contribute, and cope. In short, a system that never taught young people how to direct their own learning has left many ill-equipped to navigate careers, civic life, and mental health in adulthood.

This analysis reframes the problem: it is not simply that some students lack motivation or “grit.” It is that our systems have systematically deprived students of autonomy, relevance, productive struggle, and purposeful learning. We have, perhaps inadvertently, engineered schools that demand compliance at the expense of agency—and we are now grappling with the fallout. The COVID-19 pandemic threw these issues into stark relief: when schools closed and learning moved online, students who had been conditioned to wait for teacher instructions were often lost, while those accustomed to self-direction continued to learn effectively [edweek.org]. The pandemic was a stress test that exposed how dependent many learners had become, and how vulnerable our one-size-fits-all design is in a crisis.

Yet amidst these challenges, there is opportunity. A growing movement of educators, parents, and researchers is calling for a fundamental reimagining of schooling to foster autonomy, relevance, and mastery from early childhood onward. This report—grounded in the latest evidence and practice—aims to catalyze that reimagining. It is meant to persuade serious policymakers, researchers, and education leaders that incremental tweaks to the status quo are not enough; we need bold transformation. In the pages that follow, we chart the emerging landscape of self-directed learning (SDL): we examine how public priorities and policies are shifting in the wake of 2020–2021, synthesize new research and conceptual frameworks for learner agency, highlight innovative schools and practices leading the way, and offer actionable recommendations to spark change at scale. The message is urgent: if we fail to develop independent, self-directed learners, we risk not only individual student success, but the long-term health of our economy, democracy, and society. If we succeed, we can unlock a new era of human potential. The timing is strategic—public appetite for change is high, cross-sector alignment is growing, and the tools and models are at hand. Now is the moment to move from analysis to action.

A Changing Educational Landscape After 2021

The context for self-directed learning has shifted dramatically since 2021, opening new possibilities for reform. The fallout from COVID-19 is central to this shift. The widespread school closures of 2020–2021 awakened many families to both the limitations of conventional schooling and the value of learner autonomy. Parents witnessed first-hand how students who could set goals, manage their time, and learn independently fared far better during remote learning than those who depended entirely on teachers for direction [nextgenlearning.org]. This realization has fueled grass-roots demand for more resilient, personalized models of education. It also underscored an opportunity imperative: students from historically underserved communities, who often had less access to enriching independent learning opportunities during lockdowns, suffered disproportionate learning loss and disengagement. Recovery efforts have increasingly focused not just on academic remediation, but on rebuilding students’ ownership of their learning.

At the same time, public opinion is decisively turning toward learner-centered education. In a 2022 nationwide index on the purpose of education, 71% of Americans said that far more in our education system should change than stay the same, indicating broad dissatisfaction with the status quo [populace.org]. In another national survey, an eye-opening 74% of respondents expressed interest in pursuing self-directed education environments for their children [ijpe.inased.org]. This represents a mainstream openness to models once considered niche: homeschooling co-ops, learning pods, Montessori and Acton-style academies, and other approaches that prioritize student agency. The language of “learner-centered” learning, “student agency,” and “21st-century skills” has permeated discourse from local school boards to the U.S. Department of Education. Dozens of states and districts have adopted “Profile of a Graduate” frameworks that include traits like self-direction, adaptability, and lifelong learning. In short, the appetite for change that was already growing pre-pandemic has accelerated – the public is seeking education that is more relevant, personalized, and empowering for students.

Perhaps the most consequential development since 2021 is the emergence of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and the expansion of school choice policies that fund students rather than school systems. By 2023, at least 13 states had implemented ESA programs (up from just a handful prior to 2021), and 36 states debated ESA legislation in 2023 alone [ncsl.org]. Crucially, the trend is toward universal or near-universal eligibility. For example, Arizona’s ESA program, initially limited to certain groups, became the nation’s first to offer funding for every K–12 student in 2022 [ncsl.org]. In 2023, Arkansas, Iowa, Utah, and Florida followed suit by enacting new ESA programs or expanding existing ones to all families (some with phase-in periods) [ncsl.org ncsl.org]. These policies enable public education funds to be used for private schooling, tutoring, microschools, homeschooling curricula, and other individualized learning expenses. Proponents argue that ESAs allow parents to seek the best fit for their child and spur innovation through competition. Indeed, interest in alternatives surged during COVID-19 and has remained high; roughly 770,000 U.S. students used an ESA, voucher, or tax-credit scholarship in 2022–23, and homeschooling spiked by 63% in 2020–21 (remaining elevated thereafter) [ncsl.org]. While debates continue about the impact on public school systems, there is no doubt that ESAs have lowered barriers for families seeking self-directed or nontraditional learning pathways. Notably, a recent survey by the National Microschooling Center found that one-third of microschools now accept public ESA funds, up from 18% the year before [the74million.org]. In other words, the policy environment is increasingly conducive to the growth of learner-centered models; funding streams are beginning to follow students to flexible learning environments, and states are signaling willingness to try new approaches in the wake of the pandemic.

Alongside these policy shifts, a growing microschooling movement has emerged nationwide, with many schools actively championing self-directed learning. Microschools—very small schools or learning communities, typically enrolling a handful up to a few dozen students—have emerged as a nimble, innovative alternative to both traditional public schools and large private schools. While the concept predates the pandemic, it was during 2020–2021 that microschools gained national attention as parents formed “pandemic pods” and entrepreneurs launched one-room multi-age schools. What was a stopgap solution for some has evolved into a durable sector. By 2023, estimates suggested over 120,000 microschools operating nationwide, serving more than 1.5 million students [edweek.org]. These range from informal parent cooperatives and homeschool hybrids to formal private micro-academies and franchised models. They often emphasize personalized learning, mixed-age groupings, project-based curricula, and close adult-child relationships akin to the old one-room schoolhouse (but supercharged with modern technology and pedagogical knowledge) [christenseninstitute.org christenseninstitute.org]. Significantly, in August 2022 the National Microschooling Center (NMC) was established as a nonprofit hub to support this burgeoning field [edweek.org]. Headquartered in Nevada, the NMC provides training, resources, and advocacy for microschool founders and has quickly become the sector’s connective tissue. The NMC’s data show that many microschools serve specific niches: nearly two-thirds report enrolling neurodivergent learners (students with ADHD, autism, dyslexia, etc.), indicating that microschools are filling gaps for students for whom traditional classrooms often fall short [the74million.org]. Microschool operators themselves are a mix of former public school teachers, parents, and social entrepreneurs drawn to the idea of designing schools “from scratch” around learners’ needs. As one leader put it, educators are tired of having to “close their classroom door to teach the way they know is effective” and are instead starting microschools where students and teachers can thrive [edweek.org]. According to the NMC, as of 2025 there are an estimated 95,000 microschools (including both fully operating microschools and informal homeschooling pods) [microschoolingcenter.org].

Importantly, the microschooling trend includes well-known networks that explicitly champion self-directed learning. The Acton Academy network—pioneered in Austin, Texas—has continued its remarkable growth. Acton micro-schools share a common ethos of learner-driven education, Socratic dialogue, and learning by doing. Since 2021, dozens of new Acton Academies have opened worldwide; by 2025 the network surpassed 300 affiliated schools in over 20 countries. Acton’s model (which serves as inspiration for The Forest School: An Acton Academy headquartered together with the Institute for Self Directed Learning) treats each child as a “hero” on a personal learning journey, with teachers acting as guides and an emphasis on goal-setting, exhibitions of mastery, and peer collaboration. Similarly, networks like Prenda, Wildflower Montessori, and new ventures such as KaiPod have expanded, all leveraging small learning communities and technology to personalize learning. Even established charter school organizations are embracing microschool concepts: for example, Prenda has partnered with public school districts in some states to run in-district learning pods. Eastern Hancock Schools in Indiana, under the leadership of Superintendent George Philhower, have also embraced this approach—developing a district-supported microschool policy that enables families to co-create personalized learning experiences within the public system [greenfieldreporter.com]. In the private sector, entrepreneurial ventures backed by social investors are proliferating, offering models from low-cost community microschools to premium “micro campus” schools. The lesson for policymakers is that the supply side of education is diversifying. The traditional lines between “public,” “private,” and “home” education are blurring as families mix and match options. This creates both an imperative and an opening for policy: how can we modernize our systems (funding, credit, accountability) to accommodate and support learner-centered, self-directed models at scale? The later sections of this report will return to this question with concrete recommendations.

Finally, it bears noting that this period has seen alignment with global trends in education. Internationally, leading frameworks emphasize agency and self-direction as critical for the future. The OECD’s Education 2030 vision centers on student agency as a core competency, defined as the ability to set goals, take initiative, and reflect to shape one’s own learning and life [OECD]. UNESCO and other global bodies have similarly called for a shift toward education that empowers learners to navigate rapid change. The United States, historically bogged down in standardization and test-driven accountability, is now in a moment where it can leapfrog toward these future-ready paradigms. The convergence of public demand, enabling policy (like ESAs), and ground-up innovation (microschools and learning pods) constitutes a rare window of opportunity to remake American education to be truly learner-driven.

In summary, the landscape after 2021 is primed for self-directed learning. The pandemic exposed the weaknesses of factory-model schooling and galvanized appetite for change. Parents and students are seeking autonomy and meaning; policymakers are experimenting with funding models that let innovation flourish; and a growing ecosystem of microschools and learner-centered networks is demonstrating what’s possible. Against this backdrop, we turn to the new research and frameworks that can guide a transformation toward self-directed learning for all.

New Research and Frameworks in Self-Directed Learning

Transforming education toward self-directed learning requires more than intuition—it demands a robust research base and clear frameworks to understand how learners become self-directed and what conditions best support them. Since February 2021, the Institute for Self-Directed Learning and others have expanded the evidence base, offering new insights into the pathways, environments, and practices that cultivate independent, empowered learners. This section synthesizes those findings, reframing our understanding of self-directed learning in light of recent data, conceptual advances, and the experiences of schools during and after the pandemic.

The Developmental Pathway to Self-Direction

A breakthrough in understanding came with research that shows self-directed learning is not a fixed trait but a developable progression that all learners can traverse. In 2022, Institute researcher (Dr. Caleb Collier) published a peer-reviewed study identifying a general pathway for becoming a self-directed learner [selfdirect.school]. This framework delineates four developmental phases that an individual typically moves through on the journey from dependence to self-direction:

Phase 1: Desire to Learn. The foundation is an intrinsic motivation to learn. Before a person can take charge of their learning, they must want to learn. This desire is nurtured by factors like curiosity, personal interest, a growing sense of self-efficacy, and a safe, supportive environment that meets basic needs and fosters belonging. In essence, a learner who feels cared for, capable, and connected is primed to engage. Educators can cultivate this by helping each learner identify passions and questions that matter to them. Notably, this finding echoes a long-standing yet rarely cited truth: you cannot force someone to learn; the spark must come from within [selfdirect.school].
Phase 2: Learner Resourcefulness. Given the desire to learn something, the next step is becoming resourceful: knowing how to gather tools, information, and strategies to pursue one’s goals. This corresponds to classic self-regulation skills – for example, choosing to spend time on a challenging problem set or research task instead of a distraction. Learners build resourcefulness through practice in accessing resources (books, online materials, mentors), organizing their time, and navigating obstacles. Crucially, resourcefulness rests on the foundation of motivation: if a student has no desire, they are unlikely to seek out resources on their own [selfdirect.school]. This phase is where habits like effective use of technology, library skills, or help-seeking behaviors are formed.
Phase 3: Learner Initiative. At this stage, the learner can initiate and manage learning activities more independently – essentially self-directed learning in action. The student is able to set a goal or identify a problem to solve, formulate a plan, take the first steps, and adjust course based on feedback. They exercise agency in choosing what to work on and use metacognitive skills to monitor their progress. Educators often recognize this stage when a student starts proposing their own projects or pursuing knowledge beyond the curriculum. Building initiative is a matter of gradually releasing responsibility: for instance, shifting from teacher-defined assignments to student-chosen projects with teachers as advisors.
Phase 4: Learner Persistence. The final phase is the ability to persevere and see tasks through to completion, even in the face of difficulty. This involves resilience, grit, and sustained self-motivation. A self-directed learner not only starts a learning journey but can also overcome setbacks, remain focused, and attain mastery. Persistence is fostered by supportive coaching in strategies to cope with challenges (e.g. breaking tasks into smaller goals, reflecting on past successes, normalizing struggle as part of learning). It also grows naturally as learners experience the intrinsic rewards of achieving goals they set for themselves.

This “pathway” model has important implications. First, it demystifies self-directed learning: instead of a vague ideal or an inborn student disposition, SDL can be seen as a sequence of competencies and mindsets that any young person can develop with the right support. The research emphasizes that educators must start at the beginning – Phase 1 – by intentionally cultivating students’ desire and sense of ownership. Without that, attempts to impose responsibility (for example, abruptly expecting disengaged students to suddenly take initiative) will falter. As Dr. Caleb Collier put it, “learners need to feel taken care of, agentic, empowered…a deep connection to the relevance of the learning. Without that, the other steps toward SDL might not happen” [selfdirect.school]. Second, the framework provides a diagnostic tool: teachers and mentors can help learners self-assess which stage they are in and what they need to progress. In fact, after identifying the four phases, the Institute created a simple student self-assessment tied to the pathway [selfdirect.school]. At The Forest School: An Acton Academy (the Institute’s field site), students reflected on whether they were still kindling their desire to learn, working on how to learn (resourcefulness), struggling to take the first step (initiative), or having trouble finishing projects (persistence). This metacognitive exercise, coupled with targeted coaching, is helping students become more aware of their learning process. Lastly, this research challenges the education system to restructure learning experiences in a developmental continuum. Early and middle education (elementary through middle school) should perhaps put far more emphasis on Phase 1—sparking curiosity, identity, and motivation—than on premature academic content drilling. As students mature, scaffolding can shift toward independent project management and goal pursuit, so that by high school they have truly internalized how to learn. The pathway concept underscores that self-directed learners are made, not born, and it points the way for systemic redesign.

Learning Environments and the Ecology of Self-Direction

Just as important as within-learner traits are the environmental conditions that enable self-directed learning. In June 2024, the Institute released a landmark study on how school environment and design impact self-directed learning [selfdirect.school]. While previous research has shown that factors like natural light, flexible seating, and open layouts can improve student outcomes in traditional schools, little had been systematically studied in the context of learner-driven schools. The Institute’s study helped fill that gap by examining an unusual “natural experiment”: The Forest School (an Acton Academy in Georgia that embodies self-directed learning) moved from a traditional school building into a newly constructed, purposely-designed campus. Researchers interviewed 30 students, ages 8–18, who experienced both environments, and conducted a thematic analysis of how the physical setting affected their learning and behavior [selfdirect.school].

The results yielded rich insights. Students’ comments clustered around several key themes: the geography and organization of the learning space; the presence (or absence) of learning materials and distractions; access to nature and outdoor areas; the effect of space on social dynamics; and how the environment meets emotional and physical needs [selfdirect.school]. In the old building (designed with some traditional assumptions—e.g. standard classrooms, low ceilings, little light, etc.), learners reported feeling constrained, less motivated, and more prone to off-task behavior. They noted that in conventional rooms, it was harder to reconfigure space for group work or find quiet nooks for individual study; everyone faced the front by default, reinforcing passivity. The new campus, by contrast, included open studio spaces, student-designed breakout areas, abundant natural light, outdoor classrooms, and movable furniture. Learners described greater freedom to choose how and where to work—some would move outside when they needed inspiration or calm, others would cluster in a corner with peers to collaborate, and “cozy” areas allowed for reading or focused deep work. They also reported fewer disciplinary issues and higher sustained attention in the new environment, attributing this to feeling more respected and comfortable in a space designed for them rather than for top-down control.

From these narratives, the research team derived concrete design recommendations for schools aiming to foster self-direction. Many of these echo principles identified in large-scale studies of school design. For example, a 2015 UK study by Barrett et al. had pointed to “Naturalness, Individualization, and Level of Stimulation” as key design dimensions affecting learning [selfdirect.school]. The Forest School study found analogous factors: ample natural elements (air, light, greenery) improved mood and behavior; individualized, student-controlled spaces (like movable furniture, varied work zones) supported autonomy; and a moderate level of sensory stimulation (neither sterile nor overwhelmingly cluttered) was ideal [selfdirect.school selfdirect.school]. One particularly novel aspect in the new campus was that students themselves had input into the design. For instance, learners helped choose color schemes, decorate walls with their own artwork and goals, and set up “flow” areas for certain activities. This participatory design not only yielded a functional space but also deepened students’ ownership of the school – a virtuous cycle for SDL, as students felt “this is our environment” and thus took responsibility for it.

The broader message is that physical and cultural environments are inseparable from self-directed learning. A school building can inadvertently communicate whether learners are expected to be passive or active. Traditional architecture—30 desks bolted to the floor facing a teacher’s podium—shouts “sit still, listen, you have no control,” no matter what inspiring words are spoken. In contrast, an environment with varied, student-curated learning zones whispers “this is your space to explore, create, and take charge.” The Institute’s study thus calls on school designers and leaders to reimagine learning spaces: replace classrooms with studios and makerspaces, hallways with collaborative commons, teachers’ desks with mobile coaching stations. It also has practical implications for the many schools that cannot build new facilities: even simple changes, like flexible seating arrangements, dedicated quiet areas, or outdoor learning periods, can yield benefits. On the policy front, these findings support initiatives to modernize school infrastructure (many U.S. schools are aging and inflexible) and to update regulations that often tie funding to seat-time in a classroom. If we want to “construct a school so that it maximizes the ability for learners to self-regulate and direct their own learning,” [selfdirect.school] we must literally and figuratively redesign the spaces and systems that our students inhabit each day.

Surprisingly, some of the most compelling arguments for self-directed learning are already emerging within the very systems most resistant to change. Throughout our Institute’s consulting engagements in recent years, district leaders who engage with the principles of self-directed learning often come to a humbling realization: “Our alternative high school is the one place where we trust students to lead their own learning—why are we calling that ‘alternative’?” These leaders recognize that many of their alternative or “nontraditional” programs—those designed for students who haven’t thrived in conventional models—offer flexible schedules, project-based learning, advisory systems, and opportunities for learners to co-author their goals and paths. These are not fringe features; they reflect many of the core elements of high-quality self-directed learning environments. In other words, the qualities we call “alternative” may be the ones our education systems most urgently need. A lesson isn’t just that some students thrive in these settings—it’s that many more could, if we made these conditions the norm rather than the exception.

Cultivating Self-Direction: New Insights into Skills and Habits

Research since 2021 has also drilled down into the specific skills, habits, and supports that correlate with self-directed learning success. A clear theme has emerged: every child is capable of self-directed learning, but many need guidance to develop the necessary metacognitive and executive function skills. Far from being an elitist concept applicable only to highly motivated or high-achieving students, SDL can and should be fostered in all learners – including those who have been marginalized by traditional methods.

One illustrative study is the Institute’s 2023 project titled “Each Child a Genius: A Survey of Self-Directed Learning.” Researchers administered a 20-question self-assessment to roughly 150 students (ages 9–18) at The Forest School, which has a diverse student body (50% learners of color, 30% on scholarship, 15% with diagnosed learning differences) [selfdirect.school]. The survey asked students to reflect on their own learning behaviors and mindsets in relation to the four SDL phases. The results were telling. On the one hand, they painted a very optimistic picture: over 85% of learners expressed a strong desire to learn new things, 75% said they could identify the resources they needed to begin learning something new, and 82% felt confident they could take the initiative to get started once they had those resources [selfdirect.school]. This suggests that when given the chance (in a conducive environment), most young people want to learn and will proactively pursue learning – a powerful rejoinder to the myth that only some kids are “self-motivated.” In fact, the data showed a clear linkage: students who reported high desire also tended to report high resourcefulness and initiative [selfdirect.school], reinforcing the pathway model that motivation begets action.

On the other hand, the survey revealed important gaps. Nearly 60% of learners indicated they did not know how to effectively evaluate their own growth or learning progress [selfdirect.school]. And only about 50% said they had a reliable system or routine for tackling new challenges [selfdirect.school]. These findings highlight two areas where dependent learning patterns linger even in a self-directed setting: metacognition (self-assessment and reflection) and executive routines (consistent strategies to organize and complete work). They also likely reflect the residual effects of prior traditional schooling, where students are rarely asked to self-evaluate (the teacher or test tells them how they’re doing) and where external structures like bell schedules and due dates stand in for personal routines. Recognizing these deficits, the Institute team has translated the insights into practice. To address the lack of self-evaluation skills, the educators explicitly taught and modeled strategies for reflection: for example, they introduced a list of questions and prompts that learners could use to pause and assess their progress (e.g. “What did I find challenging today and why? What am I proud of learning this week?”) [selfdirect.school selfdirect.school]. They also noted a tendency among some students to equate completion of tasks (e.g. clicking through online lessons) with learning, rather than focusing on mastery; in response, the school shifted all studios to require “practicals” (rigorous demonstrations of mastery that resemble oral defenses, combining hands-on performance tasks with live question-and-answer sessions) for advancement instead of mere completion of playlists [selfdirect.school]. In terms of routines, the guides (The Forest School’s term for teachers) began holding peer-to-peer workshops where students who had strong organizational habits shared their methods with classmates [selfdirect.school]. Older learners discussed how they set goals each week, how they break big projects into daily tasks, and how they incorporate downtime or mindfulness to recharge – effectively, students started teaching students the life hacks of self-directed learning.

For parents, the survey results carried implications as well. The Institute shared guidance encouraging parents to regularly ask their children reflective and metacognitive questions, not just “Did you finish your homework?” or “What grade did you get?” [selfdirect.school selfdirect.school]. Example questions included: What made you wonder today? Did you encounter an idea that changed your mind about something? What do you feel stuck on and what might you do next? Such questions prompt learners to think about their own thinking and learning processes, reinforcing the self-monitoring muscle that independent learners need [selfdirect.school]. Parents and caregivers were also urged to allow their children to wrestle with challenges a bit more (with support), rather than immediately stepping in to help, thereby building persistence.

Beyond the survey, the Institute undertook a follow-up qualitative study in 2024 to identify the keys to effective self-directed learning routines. Researchers zeroed in on the roughly 50% of Forest School students who did report having strong routines or systems, reasoning that these students might hold “secrets” worth uncovering [selfdirect.school selfdirect.school]. Through in-depth interviews, they extracted 19 “pro tips” – concrete strategies and habits – that these successful self-directed learners used in their daily practice [selfdirect.school selfdirect.school]. The tips ranged from social strategies (e.g. “Make your goals known to at least one other person and ask them to hold you accountable”, “Learn how to ask for help – it's a strength, not a weakness”) to personal habits (“Create a routine of goal-setting and be consistent”, “Use natural consequences, like the frustration of failure, as learning opportunities”) [selfdirect.school selfdirect.school]. They also included environmental tactics (“Choose your workspace wisely – know where and with whom you work best”) and cognitive strategies (“Develop a system to take notes, memorize, and connect new knowledge to what you already know”) [selfdirect.school selfdirect.school]. Notably, these tips came from the students themselves – a testament to the wisdom learners develop when given the chance. The Institute published these findings in an accessible format for educators and students to use, essentially creating a playbook of proven habits for self-directed learning success. This peer-learning approach (students learning strategies from peers) has begun to spread to other learner-centered schools via workshops and conferences.

Across these studies, a unifying thesis is evident: self-directed learning does not mean “learning alone” or in a vacuum – it is actively cultivated through mentorship, community, and thoughtful scaffolding. Far from abandoning students to “sink or swim,” successful SDL environments are characterized by more intentional guidance, not less – but the role of adults shifts to that of coach, mentor, and designer of learning experiences rather than taskmaster or lecturer. When done right, the result is highly motivated, capable learners. As one Institute report concluded, “Every child enters the world as a curious, independent learner. Sadly, years of traditional schooling often crush that curiosity and independence instead of cultivating it. What if schools were different, starting with children’s natural curiosity and supporting it along the way?” [selfdirect.school]. The new research since 2021 gives us cause for hope: it shows that with the right strategies, we can rekindle the intrinsic genius in every child, equipping them with the desire, resourcefulness, initiative, and persistence to direct their own path. This is not only an educational imperative but a moral and practical necessity – as the data suggests, when we trust and invest in learners’ agency, students from all backgrounds demonstrate remarkable capacity to grow and thrive.

Tools and Frameworks for Transformation: The SDL Playbook

In addition to research studies, the movement for self-directed learning has yielded practical frameworks and resources for practitioners. A prime example is the newly released “Playbook for Self-Directed Learning: A Leader’s Guide to School Transformation and Student Agency,” published in late 2024 by the Institute’s co-founders Dr. Tyler Thigpen, Dr. Caleb Collier, Amber Bryant, and Brittney Toles [amazon.com]. This Playbook serves as an authoritative guide for education leaders seeking to convert traditional schools into learner-centered, self-directed environments [michaelbhorn.substack.com]. Drawing on both research and on-the-ground experience, the book provides a roadmap of strategies, from reorganizing the school day to retraining educators as guides, implementing mastery-based assessment, and building a culture that celebrates student ownership. Its focus is relentlessly practical: it includes case studies of schools that successfully increased student agency, templates for designing curricula around real-world projects, and frameworks for measuring growth in “soft skills” like initiative and self-regulation [selfdirect.school]. Significantly, the Playbook emphasizes a relationship-driven approach – recognizing that strong, supportive relationships are the backbone of any self-directed learning community [selfdirect.school]. Teachers (or “guides”) learn how to coach students in goal-setting, how to confer one-on-one to nurture each child’s personal goals, and how to build a classroom culture where peers support each other. The Playbook’s very existence is noteworthy: it signals that self-directed learning has matured from a loosely defined idea into a codified approach that can be communicated, taught, and replicated. Policy influencers have taken note as well; for instance, some public districts are exploring how the Playbook’s strategies could inform school redesign initiatives or innovation grants for districts.

There are also a different set of “look fors” in learner-driven, self-directed education. In traditional classrooms, the focus is on teacher delivery, compliance, and control—success is measured by silence, eye contact, and correct answers. By contrast, in learner-driven environments, the framework points to a very different set of “look fors”: learners asking questions, collaborating, and setting their own goals; engagement marked by curiosity, movement, and conversation; success defined by growth, persistence, and ownership. The role of the educator shifts from sole authority to guide—one of many resources in a classroom where learners also become experts. This framework helps administrators, educators, and parents alike recognize what real learning looks and feels like when students drive it.

Another important framework emerging in this period comes from the learning science and innovation field: the “Transcend Conditions for Innovation,” referenced by the Institute in professional development programs. This framework outlines the enabling conditions a school system needs in order to innovate successfully – things like a clear vision for the student experience, R&D capacity, community engagement, and policy flexibility. The Institute has incorporated this into its New School Models Design Lab (run in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education) [selfdirect.school]. The idea is to help school founders and leaders diagnose their context and strengthen conditions so that new models (like SDL pilots) can take root and flourish. For example, a district might realize it needs to update its credit requirements or train its principals differently to allow a self-directed program to operate with fidelity. All of these tools – developmental pathways, design principles for environments, student skill-building playbooks, leadership guides – form a new conceptual toolkit for reimagining education. They also reflect a convergence of knowledge from multiple disciplines: developmental psychology, cognitive science, architecture, and organizational change management are all informing the design of learner-centered ecosystems.

Evidence for Self Directed Learning: Better Outcomes

Since the original publication of this report in early 2021, a growing body of research has continued to affirm the effectiveness of self-directed learning—even when compared with traditional teacher-led methods:

A 2022 meta-analysis by Patall et al. in Educational Psychologist confirms that choice-rich learning environments enhance student engagement and identity development, especially when learners co-design their journeys [selfdeterminationtheory.org]
The OECD’s 2023 Future of Education and Skills reports emphasize learner agency and metacognition as “transformative competencies” essential for lifelong adaptability, well-being, and inclusive participation in rapidly changing societies.
Zhang et al. (2024) surveyed nearly 500 Chinese middle school students (grades 7–9) using mobile technology for SDL. They found that high self-efficacy and student engagement strongly predicted better SDL outcomes—showing SDL works well when students feel confident and engaged digitalcommons.memphis.edu+8researchgate.net+8journal.ypidathu.or.id+8.
A 2024 mixed-method trial during a modern German medical course found that SDL approaches led to better performance than direct instruction in clinical learning outcomes theaustralian.com.au +11bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com+11researchgate.net+11.
A 2024 study in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) compared SDL to teacher-led instruction and found SDL led to significantly higher gains in oral proficiency and structural accuracy [researchgate.net]
A 2023 meta-analysis published in the Alberta Journal of Educational Research examined studies from 2000–2022 and confirmed a strong positive correlation between SDL readiness and both academic achievement and student motivation journalhosting.ucalgary.ca.
In STEM education, just two of 50 studies focused on SDL interventions in actual classrooms and used experimental designs—indicating low but emerging interest in SDL for younger learners journal.ypidathu.or.id+1ed.gov+1.

Though limited, these findings reinforce what self-directed educators see: when students have meaningful choice, relevant challenges, and space for reflection, they do more than achieve academically—they grow in confidence, purpose, and capacity to lead their own lives. So far, only a few rigorous studies focus on SDL in K–12 and none offer broad comparisons showing SDL is definitively better than direct instruction methods. However, early results are promising—especially in mobile-enhanced, middle-school settings where students are engaged and confident. More well-designed experimental research in grade-level classrooms is still needed.

In sum, the period since 2021 has vastly enriched our understanding of how to produce independent, adaptable learners instead of dependent ones. We now have a clearer picture of what the journey to self-direction looks like for a student, how to create spaces and experiences that nurture that journey, and how to equip educators and leaders to lead the transformation. The next section will turn from theory to practice, spotlighting some of the new schools and programs that have sprung up embodying these principles. These examples serve as living proof-of-concept for the recommendations that will follow.

Emerging Learner-Centered Models on the Rise

Theory and research come alive when we see them applied in real schools and learning environments. Since 2021, numerous innovative schools, microschools, and programs have launched across the United States explicitly focused on learner agency and self-direction. They range from K–8 academies to high schools, urban to rural settings, private startups to public pilots. What unites them is a commitment to redesigning the learner experience around autonomy, purpose, and mastery.

Alongside these new models, much has also been learned from consulting directly with leaders advancing self-directed learning through the Institute for Self-Directed Learning’s national cohorts. In the Creating Pathways for Innovation program, for example, school founders and district leaders are grappling with both the promise and the practical barriers of moving toward learner agency. They consistently encounter challenges such as finding and funding appropriate facilities, redefining the role of educators as Guides, balancing structure with freedom in curriculum, ensuring financial sustainability, creating flexible graduation pathways, and gaining stakeholder buy-in. Through cross-sector coaching, peer problem-solving, and use of frameworks like Transcend’s Conditions for Innovation, these leaders are not only naming the barriers but also designing strategies to overcome them—from forging partnerships for space and resources, to piloting badge-based graduation pathways, to investing in professional development that equips adults for coaching roles. In Indiana, for instance, our collaboration with district leaders and microschool founders has surfaced key insights: mindsets must shift before practices can, adult roles must be redefined to sustain student agency, and flexible crediting systems are essential to validating apprenticeships and portfolios. These consulting cohorts remind us that self-directed learning is not just a pedagogical shift but a systemic and cultural one, requiring soil as well as seeds.

The remainder of this section highlights a selection of schools and programs that embody these lessons—illustrating the momentum of the movement and showing what is possible when research and leadership insights translate into practice. These schools are not mere anecdotes; they represent a broader pattern of innovation aligned with self-directed learning principles. Many were founded by educators or entrepreneurs responding to the pandemic’s challenges or to gaps they perceived in the education of their own children, and they often draw directly on the research and frameworks described earlier.

Red Bridge (San Francisco): A School Built on Student Agency

Launched in 2020 in San Francisco, Red Bridge is a pioneering K–8 independent school designed entirely around student agency and personal goal-setting. Founded by Orly Friedman (a veteran educator who previously helped start Khan Lab School), Red Bridge explicitly rejects the compliance-driven model of traditional schools [edweek.org]. Instead, it embraces what Friedman calls a “student agency as the foundation for academic and life success.” At Red Bridge, students are not grouped by age-grade but by autonomy level – a unique structure where advancement depends on a student’s demonstrated ability to set and follow through on goals rather than merely their birth year [edweek.org edweek.org]. For example, a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old might be in the same autonomy cohort if both have shown similar proficiency in managing their learning. To be promoted to a higher autonomy level (with corresponding greater freedoms and responsibilities), students themselves must initiate a readiness process and present evidence that they have mastered certain work habits like time management and organization [edweek.org].

The school has no bells, no traditional report cards or grades – instead, it uses a badge and portfolio system. Students earn learning credits akin to Scout merit badges, at their own pace, by demonstrating mastery in various skills and content areas [edweek.org edweek.org]. For instance, rather than taking a math test on a schedule, a student might decide when they are ready to attempt a “Fractions Mastery” credit; to earn it, they have to show understanding in multiple ways (perhaps by teaching a mini-lesson on fractions, solving real-world fraction problems, and passing a one-on-one interview with a teacher) [edweek.org]. This approach aligns with mastery-based and competency-based education trends, ensuring that learning is deep and personalized. Red Bridge also literally has no principal’s office – the campus is designed as an open, studio-like environment where staff and students mix freely, underscoring a culture of trust and transparency.

The philosophy driving Red Bridge is that students must learn to be leaders of their own learning. “Their success is in their own hands” as Friedman says [edweek.org] – a message constantly reinforced by school practices. During the pandemic, Red Bridge’s model shone: students already accustomed to setting daily goals and managing online learning platforms were able to transition to remote or hybrid scenarios with relative ease, validating the notion that agency is a buffer in times of disruption [edweek.org]. Moreover, Red Bridge addresses social-emotional needs by tying agency to well-being; the school posits (with supporting evidence) that a lack of control over one’s learning contributes to anxiety, whereas building self-efficacy can help combat the mental health challenges youth face [edweek.org]. Growing toward K–8 by 2026, Red Bridge remains intentionally small (under 60 students) but serves as a demonstration site: it regularly hosts visiting educators and even policymakers curious about its approach. The question on many minds is scalability – can the Red Bridge model, or elements of it, be replicated in larger public systems? Efforts are underway by some public districts to pilot “autonomy level” groupings and badge credits, inspired by Red Bridge’s early success.

SOAR Academy (Augusta, GA): Personalization for Neurodiverse Learners

In Augusta, Georgia, SOAR Academy represents a different but equally instructive example: a microschool that has reimagined education for students with special needs through the lens of self-directed, personalized learning. Founded by Kenisha Skaggs, SOAR Academy actually began before the pandemic (2011) as a small learning center, but it expanded and drew national attention in recent years as microschooling gained momentum [the74million.org]. SOAR specializes in serving learners who are neurodiverse or have struggled in traditional schools—students with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety disorders, and other learning differences [the74million.org]. Its philosophy is that every student can excel if their education is tailored to their unique strengths, interests, and pace.

At SOAR, each child has an individualized learning plan and they truly “don’t move on until they have mastered whatever they’re working on” [the74million.org]. This is a mastery learning approach often talked about but rarely implemented in conventional special education, which is too often about minimal compliance with an IEP. In contrast, SOAR’s environment is more akin to a nurturing homeschool combined with therapy supports. Class sizes are tiny (often 5–8 students with 2 educators), allowing for intense personalization. Students spend significant time on project-based learning that connects to their interests, whether it’s designing a model city or researching animals – harnessing passion to drive skill development. Because many students come with behavioral challenges (after negative experiences elsewhere), Soar prioritizes creating a safe, low-stress atmosphere. The schedule is flexible, sensory needs are accommodated (quiet rooms, movement breaks), and there’s an emphasis on social-emotional learning alongside academics.

One of the most striking outcomes at SOAR is that behavioral problems often virtually disappear in this setting. Ms. Skaggs noted that she has admitted students who had multiple suspensions in public school for issues like throwing chairs, yet in the microschool environment, “nine times out of ten, we do not have those behavior issues” [the74million.org]. The difference, she explains, is that when you change the environment to one where children feel understood, unpressured by rigid norms, and empowered in their learning, the frustrations and acting-out subside [the74million.org]. It’s a powerful testament to how the factory model, with its one-size-fits-all demands, can actually induce or exacerbate special needs “symptoms” that are not inevitable. At SOAR, students who were once labeled as problems transform into engaged, confident learners—some making academic gains that outpace their grade-level after years of stagnation elsewhere. Importantly, SOAR and schools like it also highlight an access gap: many families of neurodivergent learners are seeking microschools because traditional systems failed to serve them. As of early 2025, SOAR Academy is expanding to a new location and increasing capacity, buoyed by support from Georgia’s ESA program (which helps some families cover tuition). Policymakers and special education reformers are watching such models closely, as they may inform how to individualize learning at scale for students with disabilities. The lesson from SOAR is that self-directed, personalized learning is not only for neurotypical high-flyers; it can be life-changing for students who have been most poorly served by rigid structures. By focusing on each learner’s agency and mastery—meeting them where they are—SOAR is eliminating the false dichotomy between academic learning and therapeutic intervention.

Ellemercito Learning Community (Downey, CA)

Ellemercito Learning Community, founded in 2021 by Lizette and Oscar Valles in Downey, California, is a microschool rooted in a hybrid homeschool–studio model that blends project- and place-based learning with deep relational support. Narrow class sizes, individualized learning plans, and a strong emphasis on community partnerships are foundational. The Valles couple, drawing on their own experiences as educators and parents, evolved Ellemercito from a tutoring practice into a fully realized microschool where learners move at their own pace, guided by curiosity and purpose. Learners spend much of their time on interdisciplinary projects, nature-based explorations, and community-driven service, combining the flexibility of homeschooling with the belonging of a learning community.

A defining feature of Ellemercito is its trauma-informed approach. The school intentionally cultivates an environment where safety, trust, and emotional regulation are prioritized alongside academics. Staff receive training to recognize and respond to the impacts of trauma, and classroom routines are designed with flexibility, empathy, and restoration in mind. Quiet spaces, mindfulness practices, and strong relational bonds give students room to process emotions without stigma. This approach not only helps students who have experienced adversity but also benefits the entire community, normalizing self-care, resilience, and empathy as part of the learning journey.

As one of the few microschools in greater Los Angeles combining hybrid homeschooling with a sustained, trauma-informed learning community, Ellemercito demonstrates how small, relational models can thrive even in dense urban regions. It shows that by pairing mastery-based academics with attention to well-being, schools can become places of both growth and healing.

Indiana Microschools Collaborative: A Statewide Laboratory for Innovation

The Indiana Microschools Collaborative (IMC) is a public charter microschool network intentionally designed to seed learner-centered, community-rooted schools across the state. Each microschool serves 20–75 learners in multi-age settings, with students progressing through mastery-based, personalized pacing rather than traditional age-grade cohorts. Launched in partnership with Eastern Hancock School District and led by Superintendent George Philhower, the Collaborative offers shared services (administrative, HR, compliance) so that new sites can focus on culture and learning design. Its vision is to bring high-quality, close-to-home education to families who want something more flexible, relational, and locally grounded than conventional schools.

The first site, Nature’s Gift Microschool, opened in fall 2025 at Nameless Creek Youth Camp in Blue River Township. There, licensed teachers and support staff begin each day with a circle game of greetings before breaking into reading, math, and project time. Students and families describe the school as joyful, personal, and deeply connected to nature. Children spend large portions of their day outdoors, learning in ways that blend academics with exploration, movement, and play. Teachers Emma Kersey and Erin Wolski—both veterans of traditional schools—say the microschool model is the hardest they’ve ever worked but also the most rewarding, because it allows them to adapt learning to students’ needs in real time. Parents and learners alike note that the small size, flexibility, and community feel make learning more engaging and less stressful. As one student put it simply, “Things aren’t as big … there’s so much more learning opportunity because there just aren’t as many people” [greenfieldreporter.com].

By anchoring its first school in a rural camp setting and building a waiting list from day one, IMC has shown that microschools are not just boutique experiments in cities; they can also thrive as public, tuition-free options in small towns. With the first publicly funded microschool network of its kind, Indiana is positioning itself as a national model for how states can enable bottom-up innovation while still meeting public accountability standards. Leaders anticipate that additional microschools will soon launch across the state, widening access to learner-centered, nature-rich, community-driven education.

Acton Academies and the Microschooling Movement

No survey of recent SDL-aligned models would be complete without revisiting the Acton Academy network and the wider microschooling phenomenon, which have only grown since 2021. Acton Academy, co-founded by Jeff and Laura Sandefer, has become a template and an inspiration for many schools mentioned above (The Forest School itself is an Acton affiliate). The network’s core principles—mixed-age “studios” instead of grades, Guides instead of teachers, self-paced core skills practice, real-world “Quests” (projects), Socratic discussions, and personal “hero’s journey” goal-setting—remain a gold standard for many in the self-directed learning community. By 2025, Acton boasts over 300 micro campuses worldwide, a dramatic increase from its origins as a single school in Austin, TX, a decade prior. These academies operate independently (there is no top-down management, only a loose affiliation and support system), which allows each to adapt to its context while adhering to common learner-driven learning design. Importantly, Acton’s expansion demonstrates demand: in city after city, parents are either founding new Actons or enrolling in them, seeking a more empowering education for their children. Acton leaders, founders, and educators arguably hold the deepest well of practical experience in the past several decades when it comes to courageously letting go so that children can truly drive their own learning. As such, they know firsthand what it takes to build and sustain self-directed environments—and what does and doesn’t work. They are a rich source of learning for anyone seeking to move from theory to implementation.

The National Microschooling Center (NMC), launched in 2022, has helped amplify and support this movement broadly [edweek.org]. Under the leadership of Don and Ashley Soifer, the NMC has become a resource hub: it conducts surveys (as cited earlier) to illuminate who is creating microschools and why, offers training and “roadmaps” for startup microschool founders, and liaises with policymakers to ensure microschools aren’t inadvertently shut down by outdated regulations [edweek.org edweek.org]. For example, some microschools have faced zoning or licensing hurdles (being neither fully recognized as private schools nor homeschools), and the NMC has worked to clarify pathways for their legal operation. The Center estimates that as of early 2025, between 95,000 and 125,000 microschools exist in the U.S., and the number of students served is well into the millions [americanprogress.org the74million.org]. While definitions of “microschool” vary, what’s clear is that an ecosystem of small, agile learning environments is flourishing, often filling gaps left by larger institutions. For instance, microschools disproportionately serve elementary-aged students and often cater to families who were homeschooling or dissatisfied with local schools [americanprogress.org the74million.org]. They tend to be more accessible in areas with school choice funding (ESAs, vouchers) and among communities where entrepreneurial educators have the support to branch out.

For SDL, the microschool movement is both proving out concepts and raising new questions. It proves that learner agency scales down elegantly—in a small community, every student can be known, have voice, and take on authentic responsibility (like running part of the daily schedule or maintaining the classroom). Many microschools report that students who “fell through the cracks” elsewhere thrive when given agency in a supportive micro-setting [the74million.org]. At the same time, there are concerns about access and quality: microschools often charge tuition (though lower than traditional privates), and as the Center for American Progress has pointed out, the majority of microschool families to date are middle- or upper-income [americanprogress.org]. However, the National Microschooling Center’s recent landscape analysis of more than 800 microschools paints a more diverse economic picture, with significant representation from working- and lower-middle-income families who are seeking alternatives to conventional schools [microschoolingcenter.org]. This suggests the microschool movement may be reaching a broader socioeconomic base than previously assumed.

Still, equity questions remain. Without proactive measures, the advantages of self-directed, small-environment learning could bypass the students who could benefit the most—those in under-resourced communities. That’s why some advocates are calling for public microschools or microschool scholarships targeted to low-income families. Quality assurance is another open question; microschools operate with little oversight in many cases. The flip side of innovation freedom is that results can vary—some microschools might excel, others might struggle. The NMC’s stance has been to support accountability through transparency and networks rather than heavy regulation: encouraging microschools to publish results and best practices, and to learn from one another. As this movement matures, it will be crucial to document outcomes—academic, social, and beyond—to build public trust.

In essence, the proliferation of Actons, Prendas, one-room Montessori “pods,” and independent microschools from Nevada to New York signals that self-directed learning is not confined to theory or a handful of elite schools—it is happening in communities all across the country. These examples reinforce the research findings: when learners are given agency, when education is designed for engagement and purpose, young people rise to the occasion. Students become active problem-solvers, creative thinkers, and collaborative community members. Parents become partners in learning. Teachers rediscover joy in teaching as they mentor rather than manage. And importantly, these models show pathways for larger systems: they are R&D labs in which new ideas are tested on a small scale before possibly being scaled up.

Having explored the state of play—from new research to new schools—we now turn to what can come next. The final section of this report outlines bold, actionable recommendations to take self-directed learning from the margins to the mainstream. Each recommendation is aimed at policymakers and leaders who can influence change at scale, ensuring that the momentum described above leads to enduring systemic transformation rather than fading as a collection of boutique experiments. The stakes could not be higher: our economy, democracy, and communities depend on a rising generation that is empowered to learn and adapt. The time for action is now.

Recommendations: Catalyzing a Learner-Led Future

It is not enough to celebrate isolated successes or assume that innovation will diffuse on its own. Deliberate, strategic action is required to redesign systems and scale what works. The following recommendations are offered as provocations for policymakers, education leaders, and funders who are serious about reimagining education for autonomy, relevance, and mastery. They are “big moves” commensurate with the big problems we face. Each recommendation is informed by the research and examples discussed, and together they form a comprehensive agenda to shift the paradigm from compliance to self-direction. Crucially, these actions are interdependent – progress on one will reinforce the others. They also speak to timing: in this post-pandemic moment—when parent and caregiver attitudes are shifting, the policy landscape is opening to innovation, new research on self-directed learning is emerging, and exemplary models are available to learn from—we have a window in which bold initiatives can gain traction. By acting now, across sectors and states, we can build a coalition for learner-centered reform that is both broad and deep.

1. Launch Self-Directed Learning Pilots in All 50 States. Every state should initiate pilots or innovation zones to seed and showcase self-directed learning models in a variety of contexts (urban, rural, district, charter, etc.). These pilots, small at first, would create proof points and learning labs for a new kind of public schooling. States like New Hampshire and Arkansas have already toyed with “learner-centered” pilot schools; this recommendation is to go further and ensure each state dedicates space for this experimentation. Legislatures and state education agencies can authorize a set number of schools or programs exempt from certain regulations (seat time, standardized curricula, age-based grade grouping) in order to implement SDL principles – for example, a public microschool network, or a self-directed learning program within an existing high school. Funding and flexibility should be provided, along with independent evaluation. The goal is twofold: innovation and research. Pilots would allow refining of SDL practices in public settings and build an evidence base (e.g., tracking student engagement, achievement, and wellbeing under these models). They would also function as demonstration sites to win hearts and minds. As results come in, states can then scale successful approaches to more schools. A national coalition or clearinghouse (with support from organizations like the Institute for Self-Directed Learning, Transcend, Getting Smart, Learner-Centered Collaborative, Education Reimagined, or the National Microschooling Center) could coordinate cross-pilot learning so that best practices circulate widely. By 2030, we should aim to have every state with at least one exemplar public school that is known for producing empowered, self-directed learners – much like every state has a STEM academy or a performing arts magnet. These should be highly visible, supported by state leadership, and accessible to diverse student populations (not just selective admissions). In an era when 74% of Americans are open to self-directed education options [selfdirect.school], there is political cover to be ambitious. Federal funding, too, could bolster this effort (for example, via an “Education Innovation Fund” in the next ESEA reauthorization dedicated to learner-centered pilots). The key is to move beyond isolated private efforts and integrate SDL innovation into the public education system’s DNA.

2. Modernize Credit and Credentialing Systems for Mastery and Agency. One of the biggest systemic barriers to self-directed learning is the antiquated way we award credit, credentials, and track achievement in K-12 and beyond. To unleash SDL models, we must overhaul these systems. States and accrediting bodies should move aggressively toward competency-based transcripts and diplomas that recognize learning wherever and however it occurs. The Carnegie unit (a credit for 120 hours of class time) is a 1906 invention that has outlived its usefulness and thankfully is being reformed; performance-based credits are the way forward. Some steps: encourage or require high schools to offer credit by mastery (as many states already allow in policy, but few implement); support the Mastery Transcript [mastery.org] and similar efforts to change college admissions to accept competency-based records; and create state diploma pathways that allow students to test out or present portfolios in lieu of seat-time requirements. For example, a student who learns coding through independent projects or an internship could receive credit in computer science without sitting in a classroom for a year. Modernizing credentials also means valuing “21st century skills” and experiences. A diploma could include endorsements or badges for things like leadership, creativity, or self-management skills, verified by real evidence (e.g., the completion of a capstone project, or a successful community initiative led by the student). Higher education and employers must be engaged in this shift; encouragingly, many in industry have voiced that they care more about skills and portfolios than about specific course histories. We should build on that. Additionally, states should reform assessment to be less one-dimensional. Instead of high-stakes standardized tests that often narrow teaching to drill-and-test, incorporate performance tasks and student presentations that reward initiative and critical thinking. States like Virginia and Vermont have experimented with such performance assessments for accountability – these should be expanded. The College and Career Readiness Assessment Plus, developed by the Council for Aid to Education, offers a strong example—assessing key skills like quantitative reasoning, analytical thinking, persuasive writing, and writing mechanics. Modernizing credentials is about sending a clear signal: what matters is what students can do and who they become, not just what courses they’ve sat through. This recommendation will facilitate SDL because it removes the structural shackles that force schools to march lockstep through curricula regardless of individual readiness or interest. It creates room for pacing by mastery, for interdisciplinary projects, for learning outside school walls (through dual enrollment, online learning, community-based learning) all to “count.” The long-term vision is a flexible credit system akin to stackable micro-credentials, where learning is unbundled and rebundled in ways that personalize education and encourage self-direction.

3. Invest in Educator Development: Micro-Credentials and Retraining for SDL Facilitation. Teachers are a linchpin of any educational change. To move toward self-directed learning at scale, we need to retool our approach to educator preparation and professional development. Traditional teacher training often focuses on classroom management and direct instruction techniques suited to the industrial model. We must instead train a new generation of educators (and re-train current ones) as coaches, mentors, and designers of learner-centered experiences. This requires developing the competencies outlined by our Institute for Self-Directed Learning—such as cultivating a culture of agency, scaffolding challenge without seizing control, conducting goal-setting conferences with learners, assessing growth in capacities like self-regulation, and designing personalized learning plans that align with both student interests and developmental needs [selfdirect.school]. States and districts should establish micro-credential programs and certifications in these areas. For example, a teacher could earn a micro-credential in “Project-Based Learning Coach” or “Socratic Discussion Facilitator” – practical skills directly applicable to SDL classrooms. Organizations like Digital Promise and numerous universities have platforms for micro-credentials; these can be leveraged to rapidly upskill educators. States can also partner with innovative teacher prep programs (for instance, those embedding residencies in learner-centered schools) to pipeline new talent versed in these methods.

Additionally, we recommend creating SDL Educator Fellowships – akin to National Board or Teach Plus fellowships – to identify and support teacher-leaders who champion self-direction. These fellows could lead professional learning communities, publish case studies of what works, and help shift school cultures from within. Retraining is especially important for veteran teachers who have only known the traditional paradigm; they need time, support, and perhaps incentive (stipends, career advancement opportunities) to change practices. School leaders too must be trained – a principal managing an SDL pilot or conversion needs to understand how to evaluate teachers in a learner-centered classroom (where noise and movement might be higher, and where “success” looks different than test scores alone).

Importantly, this investment in human capital will also address a likely challenge: teacher burnout and turnover. By giving educators new purpose and tools as facilitators of autonomy, we may reignite their passion and reduce the churn that plagues the profession. Early evidence from microschools and Acton-type environments suggests teachers find renewed joy when freed from bureaucratic constraints and empowered to innovate; many microschool founders are former public school teachers who left to find this freedom [edweek.org]. We should not have to lose them from the public system to achieve that. Districts might even consider year-long sabbaticals or externships where teachers can work in an innovative school or environment (like The Forest School: An Acton Academy, Red Bridge, or an Acton) to immerse in the model and then return to spread those practices. In sum, we need to treat the shift to SDL as a re-professionalization of teaching – elevating teachers as creative agents themselves, equipped with modern pedagogies aligned to how today’s students learn best.

4. Fund Applied Research and Storytelling of SDL Successes. The self-directed learning movement will not sustain momentum without continued evidence and public narratives that showcase its efficacy. Therefore, we call for major investment in both applied research and storytelling/communications around SDL. On the research side, federal agencies (like the Institute of Education Sciences), philanthropies, and research universities should prioritize studies that examine long-term outcomes of learner-centered models. We need to answer questions such as: How do self-directed learners fare in college, careers, and civic life compared to traditionally schooled peers? What are the impacts on creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills? Early signs (like higher creativity and entrepreneurship in some SDL graduates) are promising, but rigorous longitudinal data will build credibility. There should also be research into implementation: what conditions most influence success when transitioning a school to SDL (e.g., leadership style, community engagement, technology tools, etc.)? The Institute for Self-Directed Learning has catalyzed some of this work (as seen in its multiple studies since 2021), but scaling up requires more partners. The National Science Foundation or private funders could sponsor “innovation network” evaluations across multiple sites. Essentially, treat SDL as a promising intervention that merits the same research attention as, say, early literacy or STEM initiatives have received.

Equally important is storytelling and dissemination. Humans are moved by stories, and to shift public perception, we need to share compelling narratives of what self-directed learning looks and feels like. This means investing in documentation: short films, school visit reports, teacher and student testimonials, and media coverage that bring the concept to life for parents and voters. For example, a series of documentary shorts following a diverse group of students through a year in a learner-driven school could powerfully illustrate growth in confidence and capability (one is reminded of the film “Most Likely to Succeed” which popularized High Tech High’s model; we need the equivalent for SDL). We also recommend establishing a national repository of SDL success stories and case studies accessible to practitioners and the public. This could be an online library where a principal can find, say, how a school in Chicago implemented student-led conferences, or how a rural microschool in Kansas boosted achievement for struggling readers through project-based methods. Case studies should highlight quantitative outcomes when possible: for instance, noting if a school saw improved attendance, reduced disciplinary incidents, higher college persistence, or other measurable gains after shifting to a more learner-directed approach. These stories and data can then inform policy briefs and outreach to policymakers. When legislators see that a self-directed learning program helped formerly disengaged students excel, or that employers are clamoring for the kind of independent thinkers such programs produce, they are more likely to support enabling legislation and funding.

Lastly, we ought to be convening an annual Self-Directed Learning Summit bringing together educators, students, researchers, and policymakers. This event (which could be backed by a credible authority such as a state education department or a national foundation) would serve to share findings, celebrate successes, and keep the issue in the limelight. The strategic timing is now: coming out of the pandemic, there is high interest in reimagining education. By flooding the zone with positive evidence and narratives of SDL working, we can convert that interest into sustained public will for change.

5. Ensure Inclusion and Access: Prioritize Underserved Learners in the SDL Revolution. A learner-centered future must be a winsome future for all. One of the gravest risks is that self-directed learning could become a luxury good enjoyed primarily by those with means, while marginalized students remain in rigid, outdated systems. We must guard against this by embedding thoughtful considerations into every reform. First, policymakers should target resources to expand access to SDL models for low-income and historically underserved communities. This could include scholarship funds or weighted student funding for enrollment in microschools or SDL programs, so that a child from a low-income family can attend an SDL school if desired. States with ESAs should conduct outreach to ensure families in disadvantaged areas know about and can use those programs (current data suggests microschools skew to higher income families [americanprogress.org], likely due to lack of awareness or upfront costs). New SDL public schools or programs should be launched especially in communities of color and rural areas that haven’t had as many alternatives. For example, a district might convert a struggling middle school into a flagship self-directed learning academy, co-designed with community input to be culturally responsive and empowering for the students.

Ensuring equity also means focusing on inclusion within SDL environments. Self-directed does not mean solitary: schools must ensure students with disabilities, English language learners, and those who have experienced trauma get the scaffolding and support services they need to succeed as independent learners. That might involve co-locating mental health resources, providing assistive technology, or having multi-disciplinary support teams in SDL schools. We should develop specialized SDL approaches that honor diverse cultural backgrounds and learning styles—drawing on, for instance, indigenous education practices that emphasize intergenerational learning and student agency, or multicultural curricula that let students explore identity and history on their own terms.

From a system perspective, metrics of success should move beyond comparative or absolute measures and instead emphasize longitudinal growth for each learner. Every child is unique, and progress should be tracked against their own trajectory rather than against static benchmarks or peers. Within that frame, we should still ask critical equity questions: Are SDL models helping to narrow racial and socioeconomic disparities in achievement or college access? Are they cultivating high expectations and deep learning for students who were left behind by traditional schools? If not, we must iterate and address barriers.

One promising sign is that SDL inherently treats each child as having unlimited potential (“every child a genius” in the Institute’s words [selfdirect.school]) – a stance that directly confronts the low expectations that have plagued marginalized groups. Schools like SOAR Academy show that when you presume competence and tailor learning, students often deemed “at-risk” can soar. Access must also extend to the distribution of modern resources: broadband access, devices, learning software, etc. are prerequisites for the personalized, often tech-enabled aspects of self-directed learning. Public-private partnerships could work to guarantee that all students, particularly in high-poverty areas, have the technological tools and internet connectivity to take advantage of online resources and remote mentoring that SDL frequently uses.

We must engage families and communities as partners. Underserved communities have understandably wary views of “education reforms” that come and go. The SDL movement should differentiate itself by co-designing with communities, respecting family knowledge, and empowering parents too. For instance, providing training for parents on how to support self-direction at home, or including community members as mentors and experts in project-based learning experiences, can bridge the gap between innovative schools and the neighborhoods they serve. Only by ensuring the benefits of self-directed learning are broadly shared can we truly claim success in reimagining education.

6. Set Policy Conditions for a Self-Directed Learning Future. For self-directed learning to thrive at scale, states must establish enabling policy conditions that give schools the freedom to innovate while protecting equity and rigor. This begins with flexibility in pacing, instructional design, and credentialing so that learners can progress based on mastery rather than seat time. Graduation and promotion requirements should recognize a wider range of authentic learning evidence, including portfolios, apprenticeships, and public exhibitions. Equally important are funding models that follow the learner, making it possible for resources to support microschools, hybrid models, and community-based learning hubs. States can accelerate this shift by creating innovation zones, offering startup grants, and revising certification pathways so that educators can be recognized as Guides—mentors and designers of learning—rather than limited to the role of content deliverers.

In addition, policy must establish guardrails that elevate flourishing over compliance. That means moving away from narrow accountability systems tied exclusively to standardized test scores and instead investing in longitudinal growth measures that reflect academic mastery, self-direction, and human development. States can support this by funding pilot programs and practitioner-led research, incentivizing local innovation networks to share insights, and creating transparent learner profiles that capture growth over time. These conditions signal trust in educators and learners, while ensuring that equity remains central. By shifting structures, redistributing power to local communities, and challenging old mental models, system leaders can help cultivate the conditions where every learner is known, empowered, and prepared to flourish.

To make these conditions real, leaders must also address infrastructure and access gaps. Broadband connectivity, devices, and modern learning platforms must be treated as essential public utilities so that personalized, tech-enabled learning is accessible to all, not just the privileged. Weighted funding formulas can ensure resources flow toward students with the most to gain from learner-directed approaches, while family engagement policies can require schools to co-create definitions of success with caregivers and learners themselves. By embedding transparency, community voice, and equity into the policy framework, states can ensure that flexibility doesn’t mean fragmentation, but instead creates a coherent system that supports innovation while safeguarding fairness and opportunity.

Seizing the Moment: A Roadmap for Self-Directed Education

We stand at a crossroads in American education. The traditional, industrial-era model has run its course; its deficiencies are evident in disengaged students, stressed educators, skill gaps, and persistent inequities. At the same time, never before have we had such clarity about what a better model could look like – nor such public willingness to embrace it. The notion of self-directed learning offers a compelling vision for a way forward: one where learners drive their education with purpose and passion, supported by caring adults; where schools ignite curiosity instead of dousing it; and where we measure success in terms of confident, capable young people ready to shape their own futures and contribute to society. This updated landscape analysis, backed by new research and real-world examples, has laid out the rationale and roadmap for that vision. The recommendations above are ambitious by design. Incremental tweaks will not suffice to turn the tide; we need moonshot thinking and action. Yet, these ideas are also eminently attainable – many are already being tested in pockets across the country. It is time to connect those dots and muster the policy courage to scale them up. Policymakers must lead, but so too must educators, parents, students, business leaders, and community stakeholders, forming unlikely alliances around a common goal: to liberate learning.

In practical terms, this means supporting pilot schools that prove independence and inclusion can go hand in hand; modernizing our definition of achievement for the 21st century; retraining our educator workforce as the guides our children deserve; disseminating the stories that make innovation real; and always centering the learners who have been most failed by the status quo. The cost of inaction is high – a future of anxious, dependent graduates unprepared to adapt or to uphold our democracy – but the benefits of success are incalculable: a generation of self-motivated learners, innovators, and citizens who will secure our collective future.

This document, commissioned to inform serious decision-makers, comes at a strategic moment. With the COVID-19 in the rearview, old entrenched habits have been loosened. Funding from relief packages and burgeoning state surpluses (in some cases) provides resources to invest in change. The workforce demands creativity and initiative like never before. And communities across red and blue states alike are experimenting with new educational forms. The time is ripe for a bold leap. Let this analysis serve as both a call to action and a guide. The landscape of self-directed learning in 2025 is rich with possibility and momentum. With enlightened leadership and collaborative effort, we can ensure that in the next decade, the phrase “dependent learner” becomes an artifact of history, and that our schools, at long last, align with the liberating promise at the heart of the American ideal.

Sources:

Acton Academy Annapolis. (2023). About Acton – 300+ learner-driven schools. https://actonannapolis.org

Center for American Progress. (2025). The importance of holding microschools accountable. https://americanprogress.org

Christensen Institute. (2023). Is 2023 the year of the microschool? https://christenseninstitute.org

Collier, C. (2023). Each child a genius: A survey of self-directed learning. https://selfdirect.school

Collier, C., & Lackey, T. (2023). Unlocking the secrets of self-directed learning: Insights from The Forest School. https://selfdirect.school

Education Week. (2023). What the heck are microschools? (Interview with Don Soifer). https://edweek.org

Hess, R. (2023). Interview with Orly Friedman on Red Bridge School. Education Week. https://edweek.org

Institute for Self-Directed Learning. (2022). What is the pathway to become a self-directed learner? https://selfdirect.school

Lackey, T., & Thigpen, T. (2024). The effects of school environment and design on self-directed learning. https://selfdirect.school

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). State actions on education savings accounts. https://ncsl.org

Populace & Gallup. (2022). Purpose of Education Index. https://selfdirect.school

The 74 Million. (2023). Microschools fill niche for students with disabilities (Soar Academy). https://the74million.org

Thigpen, T. (2025). Are we graduating generations of dependent learners? LinkedIn. https://linkedin.com

Thigpen, T., Collier, C., et al. (2024). The Playbook for Self-Directed Learning: A leader’s guide to school transformation and student agency. https://selfdirect.school; https://michaelbhorn.substack.com

Tyler Thigpen